pellet insert vs wood insert - not able to decide

I think a ton of pellets is more like 1.5 cords equivalent, not 2.5 cords, which would make them about equal on the basis of your current costs.

If you lose power the pellet insert's gonna shut down (pellet auger's electric motor-driven), whereas the wood insert just loses its blower and keeps on burning...just something else to consider in your comparison. Rick

joesat78 said:

I'm favorably considering the Regency Mid-sized wood insert. Enamored with wood inserts from the beginning, I might be unfair in not completely evaluating the pellet inserts. I just want to make sure I give enough time in researching on pellet insert too.
What I don't understand is... when I use some online calculators (https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/articles/fuel_cost_comparison_calculator) to calculate the average cost of heating a typical home, why are pellet stoves cost close to 3 times the wood stoves in terms of fuel costs? Is there any facts in this, or is the calculator terribly incorrect?

Click to expand...

What numbers are you using for pellet and wood prices?

Jay777 said:

I think a ton of pellets is more like 1.5 cords equivalent, not 2.5 cords, which would make them about equal on the basis of your current costs.

Click to expand...

This was discussed a week or so back on another thread. I believe that there is a a rule of thumb that said a ton of pellets is equal to a ton and a half of cordwood. It is not equal to a cord and a half of cordwood. Here's a partial excerpt from the other thread:

a. Of the 6 or 8 wood types I looked at, all contain about 14 million Btu/ton. VERY little variation.

b. Using 17 million Btu’s per ton as a value for pellets a ton of wood contains ~ 81% of the heat of a ton of pellets. (seems logical with the difference in moisture content).

c. When looking at volume (cord) vs weight (pellets) there is no direct correlation. This is because a cord of wood can contain from about 16 million to nearly 28 million Btu’s and weigh from about 2200# to 4000#. So a cord of white pine has only 94% of the heat of a ton a pellets, but a cord of locust has 165% of the heat of the same ton.

These are “raw” numbers; if a pellet stove is more efficient than a modern (EPA) woodstove it would skew the numbers. But there is no way that saying a ton of pellets equals 1.5 cords of wood is valid. That would, for example, be saying 2000# of pellets has the same heat content as 6000# of locust.

I think that saying a ton of pellets is equal to 1.25 tons of wood has merit. Maybe even 1.5 if the efficiency differences are large. But this is ton vs. ton, not ton vs. cord.

The math (based on prices in my area):

Pellets. One ton contains 17 million Btu's. Efficiency 76%. Therefore 12.9 million Btu's into the house for a price of $272. Cost/million Btu's is $21.05.

Cordwood (Oak). One cord contains 24 million Btu's Efficiency 70%. Therefore 16.8 million Btu's into the house for $250. Cost/million Btu's is $14.88.

There are a lot of reasons to choose pellets. But if you have decent access to reasonably priced seasoned cordwood, price is not one of those reasons.

joesat78 said:

I'm using $265/ton for pellets and 170/cord for hardwood.

Click to expand...

Then, if you want to use the same efficiencies as I guesstimated, your costs would be:

Wood = $10.12/million Btu

Pellet = $20.51/million Btu

I agree with the $922 for wood but I got $2054 for pellets (increased efficiency from the default value to 76%). I think the bottom line is that -- at your very decent price for cordwood -- your costs will be about half using cordwood vs. pellets. BUT.....

this presumes your wood guy delivers a full (128 cu. ft. cord) and it is well seasoned by the time you use it. One standard theme here seems to be that many wood guys don't deliver exactly what they promise; a ton of pellets is consistent.

One other item to consider for the up coming heating seson, is that you may have a hard time finding fully seasoned hardwood at this late point in time for $170 per cord.

There is a guy on hear named warren that has an osborn, he liked his from what I remember but I think he wished he went to the next bigger model. Check some of the older posts. I have the hampton which is a 2400 regency with a pretty face. I like the stove. Ask the weight of each stove, regencys are generally heavier=more mass. The hinge seems more solid to me as well. This could be a my stove is better than your stove insight but I checked and the regency/hampton were the ones that I liked best. With that being said I think most upper line stoves will suit your purpose.

I have the Hampton as well. I like the stove quite a bit- with our realtively open downstairs floorplan and thinnish floors (log home- nice heavy beams, but thin floors on them) we heat the whole hose pretty well.

Someone above noted that the pellet stove requires power: the insert efficiency drops quite a bit without power to the blower. I can still get a lot of heat without the blower- but with the blower it's a totally different beast.

Also, a simple 300$ generator from Shucks will make 3500 watts for 12 hours on four gallons (one tank) of gasoline during a power outage. Enough power to run either stove for heat, run your refrigerator, watch TV, lights, and make coffee.

If power outages are a problem in your area then you should have a genset.

Joesat here's something to consider, if you live in a city area without much land pellets will serve you well...they stack neatly and all you have to worry about is keeping them dry...very dry.

If you're more in an urban area and have an acre or more that means you can buy log loads.. they are the best and cheapest alternative to harvesting your own wood. And you can get deals...green wood is a lot less expensive than seasoned wood. You can eat supper and cut down 'em to size at your leisure. When you work steady at your leisure you can end up with many seasons of wood and the whole wood thing isn't a hassle.

Here in CNY ...where I think it's colder than PA...but you could be in the Mts...so I dunno. I have a buddy that gave up wood for pellets...he claims his house is just as warm as with wood and it a lot less bother. He burns a ton a month (a pallet) and buys them in the spring when theres deals to be had. Now his house was built in the 80's with 6" studs and insulation and good windows...just say'en. He also has a generator and I've been there and it's warm...btw he has a free standing pellet stove. If there's any way possible to get away from an insert...not that there not a good stove, but a free standing fire piece provides more fire power...then that's what I would do. Unless you have valuable wood work or some kind of work of art there I'd take a sledge to it and be ruthless. but check with an installer before you do that...good luck with your decision making process.

As I read above, even when buying both wood or pellets, wood is cheaper. Does anyone think, like me, that prices for both are going to increase dramatically as more people look for alternatives to gas and fuel oil? I'm going with a woodburning insert as wood can potentially be acquired without $$ going out, but does take time and effort to process. From early February through early May, I just kept my eyes open for downed trees, cutters, etc. and was able to get about a six cord mix of mulberry, cherry, walnut, maple, and oak. Pellets are a manufactured product that will always need to be purchased (I doubt many pellet burners are going to be manufacturing their own when prices start to rise, and they surely will.)

I believe that the price of pellets will rise, much much faster and higher than wood ever will. The reason is that wood can be made by anyone with a saw but pellets take a factory. Also, as people convert away from mainstream heat like oil and gas they will be more likley to burn pellets than to burn cordwood based on the high level of manual effort required every day with cordwood.

Demand for wood will remain relatively low. Demand for pellets will grow grow grow due to new pelletheads that are priced out of mainstream furnace fuels but still want a thermostat. I don't think the price of pellets will ever exceed the mainstream cost because if it did then people will just flip on their old furnaces and demand will drop. Wood burning is a lifestyle choice that not many people will make if they have an easier alternative.

Burning wood is cheaper, but you have to add in the aggravation factor... Once the wood is delivered (usually dropped in a REALLY big pile when you get the 3+ cords needed, hopefully REALLY close to where you want to season it) You have to stack it (on pallets works well, you'll have to find some. driving cost gas/money) so it doesn't tumble over, in a sunny location with plenty of air flow. Do you have the time in your busy life to stack? or do you have some "young whipper-snapper" to help? For free or will you pay him? Can you give up a sizable sunny portion of your yard for this? You MAY have to do some clearing or cut down some trees, more time... Can you deal with the look of a woodpile? If you have kids, can you keep them from playing on or near? You should cover the top of the wood in the fall. May have to buy plastic tarps-more money. Then you have to bring in the wood(from the cold snowy outside) through-out the cold months, do you have a handtruck/cart/wagon?No?,more money. Alot of people keep pellets stored in the house or garage-easier. You have to keep track of the burning of the wood more than the burning of pellets.
I love burning wood. I wouldn't have it any other way. I get most all wood free from people who have cut a tree down and want it gone. Wood is much more work compared to pellets. Although there are also Biobricks and the like-easier than wood...
I'm just trying to keep from being under the thumb "of the man". Wood you can accuire fairly easy, pellets have to be purchased.

Cooking on a stove is a novality(sp) don't let that sway your opinion or buy a stove cause you can cook on it. In a power outage or emergency any stove will heat up food...or a resourceful wife will figure out a way to make any stove cook..that's what women do. Think about it...a wood stove is a raging fire contained in a box how hard can it be to prepare eats?

I personally made the mistake of being seduced by the convenience of a corn/pellet stove. 2 winters back, corn was at $1.98/bushel (60lb). Pellets were about $3.50/40lb bag. The pellet supply in Michigan was not too good and the pellets were being shipped quite a distance adding to the cost. It was also difficult finding pellets, since in those days they were not sold in the big box stores (Walmart, Meijer, Tractor Supply etc). Now at least tractor supply sells them, even if the others in our area dont.

Given that background and being surrounded by cornfields here in Southern Michigan, the pellet / corn burner seemed a logical choice. Cheap, renewable corn, only 2 interactions per day with the stove (drop out clinker (ash) and refill the hopper) and it can be run by a thermostat. Spent $3600 for the St Croix Greenfield, the fancy cast iron dressed up version. For all the dressing up, it has a smaller hopper than the plate steel versions and the hopper door is more inconvenient for filling because it gets in the way of the bag. But, you know, that is what you get when the woman of the home has the final say on the "asthetics".... Another $900 for the 20+ feet of pellet vent, flashing, storm collar and rain cap and I did the chimney install myself.

The week after I buy the stove (still busy on the install) the corn price doubles to over $4/bushel. That blew my return on investment right out the window right there. I found a supply of corn for $3/bushel for that winter but by the following year it was over $5/bushel and heating with corn was going to cost more than with natural gas. This last winter wood pellets were around $4/40lb bag, still more expensive than heating with natural gas in my case.

The first winter heating with corn, we had an ice storm just after Xmas that took out all electrical power for a few days. I had a generator, but running a 3.5kw generator just to power the corn stove and a few lights and the refrigerator is a bit ridiculous (and expensive and loud).

Basically, since that first winter the corn burner has been in retirement. It still looks like brand new with my $4500 sunk into it. In fall last year I decided to get a wood stove since I had been colecting and splitting wood since the previous winter. Due to asthetics and furniture arrangement, I had a mighty tight space to fit the wood stove into and the only stove that would fit, meet clearances and allow someone still to move was the Morso 7110. Its a very understated design with very fine castings and really nicely assembled, but it is still a relatively small stove (1.6 cu ft firebox). I saved enough money with that stove last winter to amortise the cost of the stove, this year I have to recover the cost of the chimney and wood splitter.

This year, after needing to load the stove with wood every 4-6 hours, I am going with a bigger stove. we re-arranged the furniture and we can get the bigger stove to work. It didn't stop my wife from about having a cow about the size of the stove though. I should have brought home the T6 just to wind her up... Just bought the PE Alderlea T5 for less than I paid last year for my smaller Morso. The T5 should easily get 8 hours or more per load and I am hoping it can be pushed to 11-12. The house is reasonably well insulated and we were never cold last year with the smaller 7110. So this winter the plan is for the larger PE stove to replace the smaller Morso on the main level and the Morso will move down into our basement living room (600 sq ft) to provide the main heat source down there. Unlike the upstairs, the basement has a concrete slab and concrete poured walls on 2 sides so will be able to store heat longer between burns than the light wooden construction upstairs. So I am hoping for only 1-2 burns a day downstairs vs 24/7 upstairs.

As you can see, even though I am not stupid and I did a lot of research I still did not arrive at my final solution in 1 shot. There were members on this very forum that warned me to go with the biggest stove I could get and now I can say I know where they are coming from. Best of luck with your decision.

joesat78 said:

I'm favorably considering the Regency Mid-sized wood insert. Enamored with wood inserts from the beginning, I might be unfair in not completely evaluating the pellet inserts. I just want to make sure I give enough time in researching on pellet insert too.
What I don't understand is... when I use some online calculators (https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/articles/fuel_cost_comparison_calculator) to calculate the average cost of heating a typical home, why are pellet stoves cost close to 3 times the wood stoves in terms of fuel costs? Is there any facts in this, or is the calculator terribly incorrect?

Click to expand...

I think there is something wrong with this calculator. At least with respect to the pellet cost. If I use 81% efficiency it says the pellet cost at $250/ton is over $1800 to heat a normal home. That's over 7 tons of pellets! But I know people who heat their homes on nothing but pellets for an entire year using 3 tons. One for example is a 2 floor 3 bedroom, 1.5 bath house. Smaller than mine, but still I don't see how this calculator is coming up with $1800 for pellets. I'm about to buy a pellet insert hoping to augment some oil heat via a fireplace we rarely use. I won't do all that well with it because the house is oil fired hot water (no ductwork), but I still like the idea of reducing oil consumption and we'll probably keep the main part of the house warmer than we would on just oil which my wife likes. I'm a little worried about the noise (Breckwell P2000I) because I can't find anywhere to "hear" a breckwell.

Steve

On those calculators, pay more attention to the cost per btu than to the total cost per year. You can use as many btus to heat your home as you want and you are in control of the cost per year. The purpose is only to see which fuel is cheaper per btu.

Ok, I guess it makes sense, but in practice this seems to ignore the amount of control you have with some of the fuel types. For example, I would think that the effect of a thermostat actually makes those btus be used more effectively. I'd argue the ability to deliver the heat when you need it has a big impact on overall efficiency of your house as a system.

Take an extreme example. Let's say we could get 100% efficiency from wood, but it would all erupt from the log in 1 second. The room would be very hot for a while, the house would leak energy faster (because of the higher differential inside vs out), and later when you needed warmth you'd have to burst another log. To maintain a minimum temp you'd have to keep the place much hotter than you like because you'd have no other means of control. If you could put a thermostat on the system which had enough control to keep the temp where you wanted it, the room would not be excessively warmed and the heat loss would be minimized from the house. In my mind, this gives an advantage to oil, gas, and pellets because they have much better control over heat production. I'm no expert and haven't thought about this before, just rambling.

Steve